Guns used in 67% of murders in US

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB328
IT doesn't matter if it's 60% or 67%, there are way too many people killed with guns in this country, especially considering that we're supposed to be a modern, peaceful, prosperous country.


I'd say it would matter immensely to the 7% and their families.

If correct stats don't matter mate, why are you basing your entire point on them?




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   


Taking guns from law abiding citizens would raise the murder rate off the charts


When you shrink the supply of guns it will be harder for criminals to get them too, obviously. It doesn't matter if they are buying them legally, or buying them illegally.

Why aren't there any gangsters shooting people with RPG's and flame throwers? According to gun psycho logic every criminal should have them because they will have everything that's banned right?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


If you even bother to go to the source data I linked you can download a spreadsheet and you will very quickly find that the availability of guns = more homicides argument is NOT supported by the data. Nor is more restrictive gun laws = lower homicide rates. Sure, it SEEMS like it would make sense but it does not correlate. Go ahead. See for yourself. I double-dog dare you.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 





When you shrink the supply of guns it will be harder for criminals to get them too, obviously.


Wrong.

They don't use rpg and flamethrowers (yet) because the illegal supply of other weapons are more easily available.

Notice, illegal weapons and not weapons owned and handled by the 99.9% of responsible and law abiding people.

The illegal gun market, directly supplying criminals will NEVER dry up, regardless of disarming their victims or not.

The only difference will be the criminals will still be armed, but their victims won't be. That's a difference Americans can well do without.

Menatl healthcare acts need to be changed and reinforced to prevent lunatics going on rampages (but that costs, doesn't it!), not stripping away the Constitutional rights from the huge majority of responsible citizens, who would not only be defenceless against armed criminals, but could not challenge, even pathetically challenge if it came to it, an out of control tyrannical government.

I'd say, authorising the murder of your own citizens, incarceration without trial, attacking both the 1st and 2nd amendments of your constitutional rights and a whole host of other unAmerican policies and actions, comes pretty close to looking like a fledgling tyrannical government to me.

edit on 31-12-2012 by MysterX because: extra content...for free!



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 





Why aren't there any gangsters shooting people with RPG's and flame throwers?


It's not because they can't get them....

It's because they are inherently difficult to hold sideways, while cocking your head, and pointing with two fingers on your free hand.....



edit on 12/31/2012 by GoOfYFoOt because: spelling



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by CB328
 


If you even bother to go to the source data I linked you can download a spreadsheet and you will very quickly find that the availability of guns = more homicides argument is NOT supported by the data. Nor is more restrictive gun laws = lower homicide rates. Sure, it SEEMS like it would make sense but it does not correlate. Go ahead. See for yourself. I double-dog dare you.

He won't, because he's made up his mind that guns are alive and killing people. Those carrying them are just accomplices. All guns are possessed by evil demons that infect the soul of their owners, and make them do bad things.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Talk about a distraction. This conversation does not matter.

For example:
Let us imagine the guns are now gone.
Some psyco burns down a school with molotov cocktails, we would have fools trying to ban gas, glass, and rags...then fire.
Perhaps we should ban bows and arrows, particularly the crossbow, the dirty assult bow.
Then we should ban knives that don't fold because they are ready to kill too fast.
If people keep pushing people in front of trains, we won't know what to ban.

Someone should go gather up all the rocks, small enough to be used as asult weapons.

People gonna kill people, guns or not. The speed of round discharge does not matter. Take a sniper with a deer rifle...he goes nuts a does some remote killing, our solution, ban scopes.

People interested in mass killing wil switch to something like chem. , bio., fire, explosives.
Get it.
It is all about people an mental health. Not objects.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by CB328
 


That's total propaganda and bad propaganda at that.

All stats record that gun crime goes through the roof in areas that persue a gun free policy.

Hear that? Gun crime goes up when you ban guns.

Murder rates rise, gun related crimes rise, house invasions rise, robberies rise...and massacres tend to target, almost exclusively, soft targets in gun free areas.

Banning guns is not something you should do, if you are concerned about rising violent crime rates and massacres, instead gun ownership should be increased and extended...then crime goes down.


Then you should have no problem in citing those statistics from an unbiased source, not an opinion article that has doctored them or taken them out of context correct?

I'll be waiting for the links you provide to support your argument.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


If you read the whole artical and apply logic it totaly refutes the way in which you are intendings it's use. You must be an emotional wreck over this issue.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

I'll take a stab at this one....

Actually, I agree with you....BUT...In response to paragraph:

2) You DO NOT go around and put plastic protectors in every outlet of every other home, who doesn't have kids who have access to outlets and pokey things. Some parents choose to isolate the child from the dangers, rather than leave them in proximity, with an easily defeatable barrier, between them.

but if you're going to have someone babysit for you, you do want them in those homes do you not? The baby lives in our house, we ensure our house is safe. We live in our country, we ensure our country is safe.


3) This one, I actually like. But baby gates won't foil the insane and the criminals. Think about 8 feet taller, times 2...with razor wire...And a few armed guards for good measure.

4) Again, not a bad idea. Temporary restrictions on those who temporarily, should not have access to firearms, is a good idea. AND, is one that is already in place. Judges ALL across this country, make it a point to inquire about firearms, when an arraignee has been charged with a crime that would preclude gun ownership. Making this mandatory, would not be a bad idea.

you don't address the problem of outlets AFTER the baby has been electrocuted, you address it before hand. We can't wait until AFTER a criminal has shot someone, we try to prevent him from being able to shoot someone with sensible laws



5) As for your next statement. I do not recall with the exception of prohibition, the Federal Govt. ever returning a priveledge, let alone a right that had been stripped, without the SCOTUS getting involved. And, personally, I don't trust them with my rights, at all!

6) The people, are just fine with using their guns correctly. Unless you are OK with allowing a handful of members of a group, to define the entire body...Which some might call, bigotry, or racism? Or some other term, that defines a very short sighted view of others.

If the people were just fine with using their guns correctly, there would be ZERO gun deaths, ZERO accidents, ZERO shootings. But there aren't. People are not capable of using their guns correctly regardless of race, creed or gender.


7) Yes. Defenses against the wrong people getting guns, is important. But, there are already many, MANY defenses in place. The problem is, you can write laws until your hand falls off, the bad guys DON'T CARE!
But now, the law-abiders, the ones that must deal with these restrictions, have been so hampered with laws that dont work, that they are suffering immensely for it! And, possibly even a few are losing their own lives, because the restrictions kept, or prolonged THEM from securing the means to protect themselves. And, more innocents will die. Is this acceptable?

People are not inherently evil. They make mistakes based on what they think is right or wrong and have reasons for doing so. It's not a matter of "good guys and bad guys" there is a wide, wide range. It's not cut and dry or black and white, there are millions of shades of gray. Nobody is trying to take away all guns from all people, they are trying to prevent the guns that are meant for one thing and one thing only, assault, from being readily availble to anybody who may want one. There is no real use for them other than to kill people. They are no good for hunting, they are overkill for personal protection, they only serve for mass killing in a military sense. The average person in the country has no use for them unless they are planning to perform an illegal act either in the present or the future. Sure, if we have a zombie apocolypse, I'll regret taking them away, but chances are, most of us won't survive it anyway. I'd like to live long enough for the zombies to take me out instead of a teenager or guy who lost his job and is angry killing me in a mass shooting before the zombies ever get here.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by kthxbai
 


I think, in retribution for ALL that responsible gun owners have had to deal with, to excercize a RIGHT, we should be entitled to compromise, with the legislature. Every new restriction that we must dance around, should be met with a concession, on their part, directly relieving us, from prior laws that would be rendered unnecessary, in light of the new ones.
But, we both know that will never happen.



That's perfectly reasonable to me. But you're right, it will never happen



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by assspeaker
Talk about a distraction. This conversation does not matter.

For example:
Let us imagine the guns are now gone.
Some psyco burns down a school with molotov cocktails, we would have fools trying to ban gas, glass, and rags...then fire.
Perhaps we should ban bows and arrows, particularly the crossbow, the dirty assult bow.
Then we should ban knives that don't fold because they are ready to kill too fast.
If people keep pushing people in front of trains, we won't know what to ban.

Someone should go gather up all the rocks, small enough to be used as asult weapons.

People gonna kill people, guns or not. The speed of round discharge does not matter. Take a sniper with a deer rifle...he goes nuts a does some remote killing, our solution, ban scopes.

People interested in mass killing wil switch to something like chem. , bio., fire, explosives.
Get it.
It is all about people an mental health. Not objects.


They're not going to use those things because those things require effort. There is no effort involved in pointing an automatic weapon at a group of people and opening fire then running like the coward they are.

Think about it, if you make something extremely easy (pulling out a gun that can shoot multiple times in a matter of seconds) as opposed to something difficult (holding down a job and following laws) there are people who are going to take the easy route. Why should it be so easy for them to get any gun they want anytime they want it? Where is the responsibility?

People who do want the guns for other reasons and will be responsible with them are also responsible enough to wait until a background check clears, to register their guns, to care for them, to use them properly. It's much easier to get cooperation from responsible people who are willing to wait a few days to get what they want than it is to try to get cooperation from someone who wants it and wants it now so they can go kill bubba for sleeping with his wife.

I'd rather wait a few days and have a gun that's reasonable for the purpose I have for it than for just anybody walking down the street to go in and buy an uzi because he's in a rotten mood that day. I have no use for an uzi, none whatsoever. Very few people do and if they do, they should be able to justify that need and wait the appropriate amount of time to get it. Any reason they may have for getting it immediately and easily probably isn't going to be legal in today's world.

I may regret it when the zombies come, but until then, I'd like to be able to live my life without some guy having a lousy day coming in and shooting everyone in the area.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB328
With all the arguments lately about gun control, it seems that people are purposely overlooking the fact that guns create a huge amount of suffering and death. 67% of murders in the US are caused by guns.

www.justfacts.com...

That is a staggering figure, over 2/3rds. Then you have to add in the thousands of accidental gun deaths that happen each year, many of which include children. You would think that people concerned about protecting peoples' lives would come to the obvious conclusion that getting rid of guns (or at least cheap and easy access to guns) would do a lot of good and save tons of lives.
edit on 31-12-2012 by CB328 because: typo


So sixty seven percent of the murders involved guns. This is just a fact. The truth is how many of these murders were committed with legal guns, illegal guns would not be taken away from the criminals. Next truth, how many murders were not committed because criminals feared breaking into a house because the people may have guns. This evidence you supplied is inapplicable if the circumstances change. Criminals will still be criminals if the guns are gone, the mentally ill will still be mentally ill. If children are brought up idolizing killing and criminal activity chances are greater that they will turn out that way. We do not need guns that look like those in those video games on the street so that the mentally compromised that were amongst those that played these games can get ahold of them.

We do not need rifles that have more than ten shells capacity either and we don't need them to look so impressive to the people that have reality issues.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse

So sixty seven percent of the murders involved guns. This is just a fact. The truth is how many of these murders were committed with legal guns, illegal guns would not be taken away from the criminals. Next truth, how many murders were not committed because criminals feared breaking into a house because the people may have guns. This evidence you supplied is inapplicable if the circumstances change. Criminals will still be criminals if the guns are gone, the mentally ill will still be mentally ill. If children are brought up idolizing killing and criminal activity chances are greater that they will turn out that way. We do not need guns that look like those in those video games on the street so that the mentally compromised that were amongst those that played these games can get ahold of them.

We do not need rifles that have more than ten shells capacity either and we don't need them to look so impressive to the people that have reality issues.


Very well said. I have absolutely nothing against guns, but I do have something against them being glorified and treated as toys by those who have no real respect for them and being so easy to get that it's a quick and easy "solution" in their minds to get one and kill as many people as they can.

Yes, we'll still have criminals, but those criminals will be much less lethal. We will be looking at burglaries and assaults instead of outright murders. I'd prefer to have to worry about a pickpocket as opposed to a mass murder. The severity of the crimes are dependent upon what is available to commit the crime with



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


Yes, MURDERS, 67% of MURDERS were committed with a firearm.

AND, what is the point??

See, when one sets out to MURDER someone, they have crossed the line of caring if they break the law.
SO, regardless of firearms are restricted even more, or outlawed, those people willing or wanting to commit MURDER will care less, just as they do now.

Now, lets look at DEATHS as a whole.


edit on 31-12-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 


Something has to be done. I would say the best solution is to train every kid to learn to respect the gun somehow. To show them it is and never has been a toy. To show them that any negligence is not to be tollerated. Guns are meant to be used to get food and as a tool of war. They are meant for protection of oneself. They were never intended to be used by crazy people and the public used to identify these crazy people on a family oriented way and stop them from using them. I feel that the local police departments and the relatives of the person who is a little off should have a great input into this. Trouble is that the kids of people high up in society seem to have the biggest problems with kids that do this. They get their kids out of trouble and the kids don't learn. Daddy or mommy will bail me out. This lack of proper punishment is what causes kids to go bad. The police see this on a regular basis. The middle class is also not immune from this, it is happening all over the place. Depersonalization of the population to the rights of others is common in the USA today. The amount of people who believe that they should have more rights than others because of their financial or social status is increasing. This is wrong. We have to punish the kids appropriately so they learn instead of letting the problem get out of hand. Are you really protecting your kid when you bail him out of trouble?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I'm sure some people on the forum and elsewhere will disagree with me, but my proposed course of action (can't say solution because there is no solution) is to use the only service that is provided for all american children, the public schools, and require education and training on respectful use of firearms since they are protected in our counstitution.

Yes, there should be armed guards in every school (stationed police officer preferably) and there should be a class or curriculum at each grade level that addresses gun ownership and safety.

Our constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. Since it is our right, in the say Social Studies curriculum, there should be discussion of what responsible gun ownership is. Just as children are expected to participate in physical education, they should also be taught about firearm safety. If they are taught what a gun is, what it is capable of, what it can be used for and how to handle it properly, the rate of gun accidents will decrease and responsible gun ownership will outweigh the careless ownership.

This wouldn't be a program to "push our kids to have guns" as one extreme side would suggest, nor would it be a program to "turn our kids against guns" as the other extreme side would suggest. It would be a program to teach the children how to be responsible and not play with them like toys. It will instill the respect in them that is due. They are deadly weapons as well as vital tools and should not be taken lightly in either extreme.

If they really are part of our culture and heritage as well as an inherent right, then they need to be addressed responsibly and intelligently. That's not happening right now other than in the high schools that have an ROTC program. Otherwise, there is no mention of them, no education concerning them and extremists on both sides fighting against one another and harming those in the middle.

This is completely and purely my opinion on the matter and in no way supported by any facts or figures, just how I feel about it.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


I take it you are for a gun ban, if so can you answer this question for me please.

What has the government done that has made you trust them?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Let's say, for the sake of Arguement, that we do abolish guns in the US.

Will this decrease the number of murders? Maybe. By a fraction.

What would be the next favored tool? Poison? Knife? Blunt object? Multistoried falls? Cross bow? Lance?

This is where the "guns don't kill people" statement comes from. ##snipped##
edit on Mon Dec 31 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: crude remark removed



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Homicidal maniac with a knife: 3 people die.

Homicidal maniac with a gun: 20 people die.

Which is worse?

(answers on a postcard)





top topics
 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join